[HN Gopher] Futurehome smart hub owners must pay new $117 subscr...
___________________________________________________________________
Futurehome smart hub owners must pay new $117 subscription or lose
access
Author : duxup
Score : 71 points
Date : 2025-07-29 17:20 UTC (5 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (arstechnica.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (arstechnica.com)
| norir wrote:
| It is hard to overstate how wrong they are doing things if it
| costs more than a dollar or so per year for managed
| configuration. I previously worked for a cloud managed device
| company and it was obscene how high the margin was on the
| mandatory software licenses we bundled with the hardware and we
| were also collecting a huge amount of data, not just providing
| configuration.
| patmorgan23 wrote:
| Is that including R&D cost and maintenance? Or just raw hosting
| cost? These systems are more than just code and need active
| maintenance and defense.
| Sayrus wrote:
| If the company went bankrupt and just disappeared, people
| would still be able to use their device.
| bshep wrote:
| This is why if you have a choice you should buy devices that have
| 'local only' option.
|
| Unfortunately the masses dont care or dont have the technical
| knowledge to taoe advantage of it
| duxup wrote:
| Agreed, although if it has any online management / phone home /
| software updates, that can be removed.
|
| In the end it's about trust if there's any other party
| involved. And you hope you can trust the next person who maybe
| buys the company.
| somanyphotons wrote:
| > that can be removed.
|
| I'm surprised that there isn't more legal action from this
| behavior
| codecutter wrote:
| Other thing I have started doing is to stop doing any upgrade
| for things that are already working locally. Example: no more
| upgrades for HP printer software.
| sumtechguy wrote:
| The thing is that may not have saved them here. They did an
| update to make it stop working. You would need to be local only
| and stay there and never use the online features.
| kube-system wrote:
| "Auto-executes code from the internet" sounds diametrically
| opposed to "local only"
| CaliforniaKarl wrote:
| I think it's worth noting that the company which is charging the
| subscription fee is not the same company that sold the smart
| hubs: Futurehome declared bankruptcy in May; this fee is being
| charged by its successor.
| bigmattystyles wrote:
| What about the people? Are they the same?
| owlninja wrote:
| > The platform and related services were purchased from the
| bankruptcy estate--50 percent by former Futurehome owners and
| 50 percent by Sikom Connect--and are now operated by FHSD
| Connect AS.
| msgodel wrote:
| It doesn't matter whether it's shareholders or creditors in
| charge IMO. Neither party have your interests in mind.
|
| If you don't have the firmware source and an unlocked
| bootloader you're only renting the device.
| gruez wrote:
| That might work for the average HN user that already has a
| homelab cluster with a dozen kubernetes services running, but
| for the average joe it might as well be dead.
| fsflover wrote:
| This is an old argument. FLOSS firmware allows consumer to
| pay to _any_ external company to fix the device, thus
| breaking the artificial monopoly of proprietary software.
| duxup wrote:
| Sadly that demonstrates how you have to trust the first company
| ... and anyone else who might buy that company ... :(
| phkahler wrote:
| So the company has even less claim to those devices it has
| damaged.
| like_any_other wrote:
| Are we to understand that it is legal to sabotage [1] products
| if you buy their bankrupt manufacturer? Do I have to care about
| the corporate health of the maker of every item in my house
| now?
|
| And does the bankruptcy even matter, legally? The company had a
| business/contractual relationship with its customers. Selling
| that contract/relationship to someone else, even through
| bankruptcy, does not let them unilaterally alter it. E.g. if
| they had made promises, contractual or even just in marketing,
| a change of owner is immaterial to the other side of that
| contract/promise.
|
| [1] This is not hyperbole, but an accurate description of
| destroying functionality that did not require company servers.
|
| [2] False advertising is a crime, after all.
| Pet_Ant wrote:
| I mean, I think the answer to 1 is "yes". They wouldn't have
| bought the asset if they couldn't extort their customers. Now
| you at least have the option to pay to continue access,
| versus having no maintenance at all.
|
| Is it ethical? I wouldn't say so, but I do think that is the
| economic argument.
| like_any_other wrote:
| > Now you at least have the option to pay to continue
| access, versus having no maintenance at all.
|
| They locked the owners out of their devices, hence the
| bounty from Rossmann to "hack" them. They gave one option,
| but took one away.
|
| > I think the answer to 1 is "yes". They wouldn't have
| bought the asset if they couldn't extort their customers.
|
| It's definitely how the law is currently being applied, and
| they probably won't have legal trouble from it, but I argue
| this is a corruption of ownership law, and any kind of
| update that is against the device owner's wishes (that they
| are deliberately prevented from reverting) is equivalent to
| criminal hacking. I can't emphasize this enough - the
| devices in question _do not belong to them_. They _sold
| them_ , these are privately-owned computers they are
| interfering with.
|
| Especially in the case of bankruptcy - the device owners
| have no more of a business relationship with this new
| owner, than they do with a random hacker making printers
| emit goatse.
| foobarian wrote:
| Sadly this is probably all clearly spelled out in the
| original fine print. And the only way to guarantee you
| can avoid these kind of shenanigans is to go full
| Stallman and run everything yourself.
| kube-system wrote:
| If you have an sort of a services subscription with a company
| and they are dissolved during liquidation -- the most
| frequent outcome is that the service is no longer available
| for _any_ price. The business is gone.
|
| If you had a landscaper mowing your lawn and they die, nobody
| expects the person who buys the lawnmower at the estate sale
| to continue mowing everyone's lawn.
|
| This isn't any different just because it is a different type
| of service. Cloud platforms are services and like any other
| business, they disappear... _a lot_.
| tobr wrote:
| It's more like if they sold _you_ a lawnmower, but kept the
| key to start it, and now they're dead, and someone bought
| their key cabinet.
| kube-system wrote:
| In my analogy, the lawnmower is the cloud server, and
| your sod is your smart hub.
|
| But forget the analogy.
|
| Cloud services are services. If you buy a device that
| requires continued services to operate, and the service
| goes away, it doesn't operate.
|
| People might be mad about this, but I'm sure everyone on
| this forum is smart enough to realize that servers don't
| run themselves
| Xss3 wrote:
| They didnt buy a device that requires connected services.
| It could work locally. That functionality has been
| removed in an 'upgrade'.
|
| They destroyed the lawnmower and now want you to rent
| one.
| kube-system wrote:
| That sounds awfully like a dependency on services to me.
| If the device is designed for somebody else to be
| managing and pushing out offer updates to it on your
| behalf, that's a service. I wouldn't buy a lawnmower
| where normal operation of the device let somebody else
| change it whenever they feel like it.
| EMIRELADERO wrote:
| The point is that the dependency is artificial. The user
| you responded to said it wasn't sold as a service, as it
| had local functionality that was removed post-sale.
|
| The customer didn't buy access to a service with a
| physical product to serve as support for that service,
| they _purchased functionality_ , and that functionality
| is (potentially illegally) being taken away from them.
| kube-system wrote:
| I understand why people are mad. I just don't understand
| why anyone here is surprised.
|
| Nor is there really anything unique about artificial
| proprietary lock-in when it comes to services. As a
| business practice it's not uncommon.
| EMIRELADERO wrote:
| > I just don't understand why anyone here is surprised.
|
| Are they? To me it looks like legitimate complaints and
| only that.
|
| > Nor is there really anything unique about artificial
| proprietary lock-in when it comes to services. As a
| business practice it's not uncommon.
|
| It's unique in its illegallity. They're lucky these
| aren't very expensive products, or people would actually
| go to court and maybe force the manufacturer's hand for
| once.
| kube-system wrote:
| I don't know about the home jurisdiction of this company,
| but I don't see any reason why this would be illegal in
| the US. Typically most cloud products outline in their
| terms that services and their features may change at any
| point.
| EMIRELADERO wrote:
| The illegality lies on the fact that the product was
| advertised as having certain functionality on its own.
|
| > Typically most cloud products outline in their terms
| that services and their features may change it at any
| point.
|
| The user bought the device before ever agreeing to any
| terms. At that point they're inherently entitled to the
| advertised functionality, merely by having their money
| change hands. Any post-sale agreement is separate from
| the purchase of the product that was informed by the
| advertisements.
| kube-system wrote:
| Except there are two different companies here. The
| company that initially advertised and launched these
| products doesn't exist.
|
| The second company bought servers that are connected to
| devices where users have all clicked through a EULA which
| likely says that they can change it whenever the heck
| they want.
| EMIRELADERO wrote:
| > The second company bought servers that are connected to
| devices where users have all clicked through a EULA which
| likely says that they can change it whenever the heck
| they want.
|
| And that EULA is potentially unconscionable, both
| procedurally and substantively, both due to the prior
| purchase that was concluded before any EULA came into the
| picture and the overall balance of power in the terms,
| the reason being that users have an inherent legal right
| to use software that comes with a device they purchased
| regardless of any later agreement.
| kube-system wrote:
| I do agree that the users have a good case for the right
| to run the version of the software that the device came
| with. I don't know if they have a good case to demand
| specific performance from a different company in order to
| do that _for_ them. I also think that a EULA, whether
| enforceable or not in its terms, serves as pretty decent
| notice that continued software updates are a thing that
| it does, and those updates may change features, then that
| the current owners didn 't violate anyone's rights by
| pushing out a software update. But if I were a user
| trying to revert my device back to the original software,
| I wouldn't be worried about any legal threats from the
| current owner.
| EMIRELADERO wrote:
| > I don't know if they have a good case to demand
| specific performance from a different company in order to
| do that for them.
|
| I mean, this new company pushed the lockout update and
| imposed the new terms. If we already assume that the
| users have the right to the advertised functionality, and
| that the new company has ties to the consumers by
| inheriting its contractual relationship with them through
| the previous company's EULA, it would make the most sense
| for a court to order them to right their wrong.
| kube-system wrote:
| Liability for false advertising generally does not
| transfer in an asset purchase. And the original company
| didn't really make any false statements. They were just
| unable to continue to uphold them because they cease to
| exist. But promises by some other company don't really
| transfer over unless you have a contract that
| specifically says that they do. If you're saying that the
| EULA _is that contract_ , well, that same contract almost
| certainly gives the service provider the option to change
| it however they see fit. And I don't know the details
| here, but usually when something like this happens, any
| acquiring service provider will usually pop up a click
| through EULA that's updated for the new service provider,
| before they push out any further updates, to further
| strengthen any agreements that might be contained within
| it before they make any changes. But again, it looks like
| this company is not in the US so who knows how this may
| work in some other place.
| true_religion wrote:
| People are just mad that services which aren't essential
| to operation are being used to force people into
| subscriptions, or to enable features which could've been
| implemented without the server (and thus without the
| additional cost to the company).
|
| Like with Nest going EOL. There's no reason that it
| needed a wifi connection to operate. The server doesn't
| hold any useful information and just proxies instructions
| to your nest device when you use the app.
|
| It would have been nice if rather than wifi being used to
| communicate with googles' servers, wifi was just used to
| communicate with your app on your device via the local
| network. Or bluetooth was available as a fallback.
| kube-system wrote:
| Yeah, it's buyers remorse. Buy devices that rely on cloud
| services, and you are at the mercy of that continued
| service. I just find it absolutely wild that some seem to
| be surprised by this in a technical forum of all places.
|
| I'm a nest early adopter affected by the nest EOL. I
| presume you mean: there's no reason it needs a cloud
| service? Because it definitely needs network access for
| you to connect to it remotely.
|
| But if you are familiar at all with the history of IOT
| devices, the reason why cloud connected devices took off
| in popularity, is because they do NAT traversal for you.
| Most people struggled to set these devices up before the
| advent of cloud IOT.
| like_any_other wrote:
| Let's not conflate the cloud service, with locking the
| devices from their users and preventing even non-cloud-
| functionality.
|
| It's like if the landscaper tried charging me for using _my
| own_ lawnmower, myself.
| kube-system wrote:
| If you can use the box without the service, just do it.
|
| I think the _actual_ answer is that you can 't. Just
| because the technology is there in such a way that it
| theoretically could, doesn't mean that is actually what
| you bought.
| like_any_other wrote:
| > If you can use the box without the service, just do it.
|
| They prevented that by locking the boxes, and threatened
| prosecution to someone trying to undo those locks:
| _Futurehome CEO threatens police action after I offer
| $5,000 bounty to free his ransomed customers_ -
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RwSkwh3nWv8
| kube-system wrote:
| If you buy a device that remotely executes code as a
| matter of normal operation, there isn't anything local
| about it.
| throw7 wrote:
| The article says "purchased from the bankruptcy estate--50
| percent by former Futurehome owners..." So that sounds like the
| same people/company no?
| kube-system wrote:
| Completely different company with some of the same owners.
| gchamonlive wrote:
| Missed opportunity for the article to include the video Rossmann
| has on this: https://youtu.be/RwSkwh3nWv8
| throawaywpg wrote:
| Didn't need a Nostradamus to see this coming.
| reverendsteveii wrote:
| I already avoid devices that require subscription rather than
| allowing ownership. If someone decides to change the terms of the
| deal after I bought the device to gate previously accessible
| functionality behind a paywall I guarantee that they will never
| see another nickel of mine for the rest of our shared existence
| on this earth. I don't actually care that your costs exceed your
| revenue. Shut down then. It's your problem to price things in a
| way that pays for your costs as a business, not mine, and it's
| your problem to uphold agreements you made or to fail as a
| business.
| dboreham wrote:
| > avoid devices that require subscription
|
| This is fine if the device is stand-alone. But if its operation
| depends on any back end service, then your choice makes it
| inevitable that it will cease operating at some point in the
| future. Nobody, no matter how drugged-up their marketing folks
| are, is going to provide that service forever for no charge.
| baq wrote:
| My smart home actively avoids anything with a cloud sign and
| tries to avoid anything without a Zigbee logo for exactly this
| reason. There's no way a Zigbee device could get flashed with a
| firmware which requires an external server.
| ldng wrote:
| Same here, but man, it's hard to find devices with zigbee ...
| manufacturers all want to sell you their f-ing cloud service.
| They heard it is more monetizable yet they don't really know
| how and end up shutting down the service anyway. Long live to
| (literally) programmed obsolescence. Annoying.
| tehlike wrote:
| Homeassistant + zigbee/matter or local wifi is the way to go...
| nelblu wrote:
| > "It is regrettable that we now have to spend time and resources
| strengthening the security of a popular service rather than
| further developing functionality for the benefit of our
| customers."
|
| Based on all the data leaks that happen constantly on cloud
| connected, data harvesting services, I have zero faith that these
| companies care about security. These companies couldn't care less
| if they leak personal data online, but god forbid someone is
| trying to root our device or flash another OS, now suddenly we
| need to strengthen our security. Fuck these people frankly.
| rfwhyte wrote:
| Sounds like the new owners of this already morally and
| financially bankrupt company are going to go bankrupt all over
| again if they are trying to pull this kind of scam bait and
| switch on their small and shrinking user base.
| z3ugma wrote:
| This is one of the reasons I am working on an enclosure-
| compatible open-source version of the 2nd gen Nest thermostat. It
| reuses the enclosure, encoder ring, display, and mounts of the
| Nest but replaces the "thinking" part with an open-source PCB
| that can interact with Home Assistant.
|
| Nest Thermostats of the 1st and 2nd generation will no longer be
| supported by Google starting October 25, 2025. You will still be
| able to access temperature, mode, schedules, and settings
| directly on the thermostat - and existing schedules should
| continue to work uninterrupted. However, these thermostats will
| no longer receive software or security updates, will not have any
| Nest app or Home app controls, and Google will end support for
| other connected features like Home/Away Assist. It has been
| pretty-badly supported in Home Assistant for over a year anyway,
| missing important connected features.
|
| I've got the faceplate PCB done and working; the rotary encoder
| and ring working; and the display working but with terrible code
| with a low refresh rate.
|
| I need to ship by October to beat the retirement date. Plans to
| get some regular development report-outs and pre-orders are
| coming quite soon.
|
| It's open source, and uses ESP32-C6 so it can be Wifi, BLE, or
| Zigbee, whatever software you intend to load onto it.
| jsiepkes wrote:
| Sounds cool! What do you think of the opensource smart knob
| https://github.com/scottbez1/smartknob ?
| z3ugma wrote:
| Oh I love it, I drew some inspiration for rotary encoder
| options from here actually. It reminds me of the older Senic
| Nuimo from about 10 years ago with a similar goal.
|
| Reusing the Nest is about keeping bill of materials cost very
| low by reusing old hardware, and not complicating the supply
| chain with PCB manufacturing plus 3d printing plus metal CNC.
| AShyFig wrote:
| This sounds really interesting! I'd love to see it when you're
| done.
|
| I wasn't aware that my Nest thermostat was going to be End of
| Life'd, but I just finished replacing it with an older
| Honeywell/Zwave combo due to lack of features and general de-
| googleing. Would be great to do something with the hardware,
| which is really slick.
| z3ugma wrote:
| The goals have been 1. to help recycle hardware and keep it
| out of a landfill but more importantly 2. to have an open
| source thermostat with beautiful design. Nest cared a lot
| about the aesthetics. as do the people with whom I share my
| living space and for whom a thermostat has a minimum
| prettiness acceptable. The Honeywell/ZWave landscape has not
| shown itself to be "pretty" to me for the most part.
| CamperBob2 wrote:
| Nice. "If you have the enclosure, we have the board."
| z3ugma wrote:
| Even better, I want to do a "swap shack" style where you buy
| a refurbed, built model and ship us your old model, which we
| can then refurb into the next user's home.
| psunavy03 wrote:
| I don't know what needs to happen under the hood, but as
| someone with a Mitsubishi heat pump, if you could demonstrably
| make it a Kumo Cloud-beater, you'd probably increase sales.
| Mitsubishi supposedly has the best hardware out there, but
| their cloud solution S U C K S . . .
|
| You can't even connect it to WiFi with an iOS 18 device due to
| a so-called "known issue" with iOS 18's Bluetooth architecture.
| Like what, I'm supposed to buy a new Android device just to
| hook up your dongle?
|
| Supposedly there's some secret sauce their proprietary
| thermostats have that third-party ones don't to increase
| efficiency, or that's what the sales guys claim.
| exmadscientist wrote:
| There is this guy: https://clima.protoart.net/
|
| It looks to tick a lot of boxes but isn't quite what I want,
| and is _just_ expensive enough that I haven 't pulled the
| trigger to test one out anyway. It seems to be well regarded
| if it does what you're looking for.
|
| (I really only want to add wall thermostats to a new-built
| house that was designed for mini-splits for the beginning, so
| it has crappy remotes but no wall thermostats, and to have
| some button I can press for "all off" to make sure all the
| mini-splits are actually off. Other features welcome, but
| those are what I'm really after.)
| preachermon wrote:
| there is also the M5 stack rotary knob (esp32)
|
| https://shop.m5stack.com/products/m5stack-dial-esp32-s3-smar...
| didgetmaster wrote:
| It is one thing for a company to discontinue offering a service
| that they used to provide for free; but it is completely
| different to take steps to brick a device that would otherwise
| continue to work, if the user does not buy something not
| discussed in the original transaction (e.g. a subscription).
| vlod wrote:
| Learnt my lesson with wemo and google nest. Google Home assistant
| seems to give garbage 50% of the time (see r/googlehome).
|
| All in on zigbee and zigbee2mqtt connecting to my local ubuntu
| server (used for plex as well). I'll write damn custom react-
| native apps and sideload them onto my android phone then deal
| with these shitty companies again.
|
| If you have the skills, it might be worth investing some time
| into this. It isn't as hard or scary as you'd imagine.
| general1726 wrote:
| This is a reason why I would NEVER in my life have anything what
| is calling itself "smart" controlling any important functions in
| my house. It is just a trojan horse ready to cripple my own
| living any time when owners of C2 server will feels like so.
| ryandrake wrote:
| This is going to become more and more of a problem with all
| "smart" device manufacturers whose devices rely on them keeping a
| backend service stood up. These manufacturers will all eventually
| 1. go bankrupt, killing their service, 2. end/sunset the service
| in ways that nerf/brick devices, or 3. start charging for what
| used to be free.
|
| Unlike traditional dumb devices (or local-only smart devices) we
| cannot rely on these things working as they once did forever.
| Best bet is to avoid them entirely.
| fn-mote wrote:
| This is why I'm so anti-IoT for major appliances in my home (eg
| refrigerator, washing machine).
|
| I want local only, never contact the mothership.
| oliwarner wrote:
| A great reminder that one-off hardware costs don't indefinitely
| cover third party support, especially if that includes services
| and apps without another obvious revenue stream.
|
| A lot of people want to call this switch and bait, or a scam, but
| consumers need to apply their own critical thinking to purchases
| like this. Some of these devices have had service for nearly a
| decade. Is that terrible for a PS200 device?
| kazinator wrote:
| This is basically sabotage for a ransom demand, which should be
| punishable by imprisonment.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-07-29 23:01 UTC)